Former governor gets Libertarian nod

The small L libertarian ex-governor of Massachusetts is now a big L candidate for the same office in New York. He is also still seeking the Republican nomination as well. New York allows cross endorsements and vote totals are added together for the final total. William Weld was always sympathetic to libertarian ideas as a Republican and by that I don't mean he was a conservative who called himself a libertarian. He actually supported social freedom unlike most Republicans who claim to be libertarian.

Weld says that if the GOP does not nominate him he will continue with his race as the Libertarian candidate only -- which, I hope, will be the case.

Because Weld is a socially liberal Republican he has problems within the GOP which is anti-freedom on social issues and dominated by big government conservatives. He also has problems with voters who would like to support him but are unwilling to vote for a Republican under any circumstance. Having the nomination of a second party, and one that is not allied with the Religious Right, could be just what he needs. This allows voters who support Weld, but despise the GOP with good reason, to vote for him without backing the Republican Party.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Calling a spade a spade

When Ed Thompson ran for governor of Wisconsin as a Libertarian he stunned pundits by garnering 185,000 votes. It was said that he took the election from the Republican. These days that's not so bad a thing. Considering that this brother Tommy was the former Republican holder of that office only added to the drama.

The Christianist controlled Republican Party of his brother has again come under attack by Thompson. Republicans who control the state legislature are trying to push through a constitutional amendment to ban recognising gay relationships. And while I have not read the measure yet reports seem to indicate it is another Christianist measure which restricts such recognition even when privately given --- so much for Republicans defending civil society from state intrusion.

Thompson wants none of it. At a recent convention of the Libertarian Party he said the Republicans are trying to push through "laws of prejudice" and told his audience "If you can accept [these laws] you're not a Libertarian. You're not even an American. You're a bigot." No wonder 185,000 people voted for him even though no one expected him to win. So many people, including faux libertarians, are trying to pander to the Christianist Right that it is refreshing to see someone call a bigot a bigot.

In related news former Masschusetts governorn Bill Weld, now of New York, is seeking to be governor of that state. Not only is he seeking the nomination of his own Republican Party but also seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party. No Republican has won election to the governor's mansion without the support of a third party -- normally the Conservative Party. But the Christianists in the Conservative Party won't endorse Weld because he refuses to toe the line on their big government morality agenda. They want him to support banning abortion and want him to reject equal rights for gay people. Weld is not willing to kowtow to the bigots on the Religious Right and hopes that the nomination of the Libertarian Party would increase his chances of election since the Conservatives will refuse to endorse him.

The Libertarians won't go out empty-handed. If they nominate Weld they stand a good chance of having a large number of Weld supporters cast their votes for the man on their ticket and if 50,000 do that the party could have automatic ballot status for the next four years. The potential downside is that Weld is still facing significant opposition within the theocratic GOP and the nomination for that party may not be decided until September. If Weld loses that nomination and withdraws from the race the Libertarians could be without a candidate. I would hope that Weld would reassure them that he will stay in the race. With him as the Libertarian candidate, even if he is not nominated by the GOP, it should mean the Libertarians gain ballot status and it should be enough to deny the Christianists in the Republican Party control of the governor's office in New York. Both are worty goals. It is a sad thing to say but these days Americans are better off electing Democrats than conservative Republicans.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Who is John Galt?

Can it actually happen? Is Ayn Rand's monumental novel Atlas Shrugged going to make it to the big screen at last? Showbiz magazine Variety says: "Ayn Rand's most ambitious novel may finally be brought to the big screen after years of false starts." They report that Lionsgate has acquired the distribution rights for the film from the team of Howard and Karen Baldwin. Businessman John Aglialoro, a long-time Rand fan, will produce the project along with the Baldwins.

Variety notes that for the role of Dagny Taggart "it's not a stretch to assume Rand enthusiast Angelina Jolie's name has been brought up. Brad Pitt, also a fan, is rumoured to be among the names for lead male character John Galt." After years of ups and downs the film had made landed on the desk of Philip Anschutz and the Baldwins were working with him to get the film produced. Anschutz, a billionaire conservative might be attracted to the pro-market message of the book but he is also a hard Right religionist who would no doubt find Rand's commitment to reason and individual rights disturbing. In the end Anschutz pulled the plug.

The Baldwins left to form Baldwin Entertainment Group and they took Atlas with them. They told Variety: "What we've always needed was a studio that had the same passion for this project that we and John have." Cost for the film is estimated to be in excess of $30 million. But as a novel Atlas sells around 100,000 copies per year and has a ready made audience of fans who would give their right to see it.

A Pitt/Jolie team could be brought on board. Now that these two are a couple negotiation would be easier. And Pitt, who was too young and too much of a pretty boy for the role, has matured as an actor and in his looks. I suspect Ayn would approve. With the famed couple both Rand fans they may well be willing to take a smaller salary for a larger cut of the profits simply because they like the book. Their names attached to this title would make it a hit at the box office and create hundreds of thousands of new fans for Rand's rational capitalism.

But the most difficult problem still has to be face -- how to turn this leviathan of a book into a manageable screen play. It has been conceived as a mini-series in the past simply due to the length. Howard Baldwin admitted they have considered making two films. In addition large sections of Rand's novel are mired in old technologies that no longer hold the importance they did in the past: Taggart's railroad and Rearden's steel works for example. And the question has to be asked whether the movie-going public will comprehend their vital importance to the plot.

I fear that the novel will not translate well to film and may disappoint many of Rand's loyal fans. But then they are not an easy crowd to make happy as many seem intent on being miserable on principle. But still the combination of the names Ayn Rand, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie would still be box office magic. If the film is made it will be one of the most talked about theatrical events of the year and one that is sure to earn back its investment quickly. Millions of Rand's fans will attend the film and I suspect that millions of Pitt/Jolie fans would be inspired to read the novel and at least a few hundred thousand will actually finish it. Those that do are the lucky ones.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Thanks for clarifying that.

The deservedly esteemed publication, The Economist, ran a little review of the film V for Vendetta which I only got around to reading today in spite of it appearing a month ago. The said: "As for the dystopian fable, only fans of detention centres, torture, unfettered government suveillance, screaming mad television pundits and laws against alternative lifestyles will find anything here that could possibly offend." Now if that isn't a challenge to the Bush administration I don't know what is!

In fact the Mullahs on the Religious Right were spitting blood over the film the moment it was released. Christianist Ted Baehr, of the Christian Film & Television Commission, fused and fumed about the movie on a loony right website called World Net Daily. He said the film is a "vile, pro-terrorists piece of neo-Marist, left-wing propaganda filled with radical sexual politics and nasty attacks on religion and Christianity." Even though the plot comes from a story that is 20 years old Baehr whines that it is a "thinly veiled attack on the War on Terror now being waged by Prime Minister Tony Blair in Great Britain and President George W. Bush in the United States."

I guess The Economist hit the nail on the head. The only people offended by the film are fams of "detention centres, torture, unfettered government suveillance, screaming mad television pundits and laws against alternative lifestyles." Now is it clear why conservatives are not within the classical liberal tradition?

Free speech and involuntary audiences.

Tyler Harper is, no doubt, just a naive high school kid with a religious prejudice. He went to his high school intent on pushing his fundamentalist view of the world. Actually I should not say "his fundamentalist view of the world" as one trademark of fundamentalism is that the true believer doesn't entertain his own views at all but repeats what he is taught. In Harper's case he decided to go to school with a message that was deemed anti-gay. He was upset his school had a Gay-Straight Alliance so he donned a tacky t-shirt saying: "Be Ashamed Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned" on one side and "Homosexuality is Shameful" on the other side. I have no doubt that Harper is a bigot. The school required him to change shirts. He complained and took the matter to court, no doubt with the help of the professional bigots in the Religious Right.

The court ruled that Harper did not have the right to wear this shirt under these circumstances. Judge Alex Kozinski dissented. He basically argued that the shirt was not disruptive of the school. The majority argued that the shirt was offensive to other students. I have great respect for Kozinski and have for year but what is the liberal position?

Liberals believe in free speech. No doubt about that but always within context. That is often forgotten. A right to speech does not mean a right at the expense of others. In this case I mean no one can promote their agenda using resources taken from others against their will. No artist has a right to a subsidy. No author has the right to be sold in a specific bookstore without the store's consent.

I find this case a difficult one because of the context. Now if Mr. Tyler were on his own property in his t-shirt and you find it offensive you can just leave. If it is a public street the issue is messy but resolvable. My view is the street is meant for all people to use and he should be free to express his opinion. Where the issue gets difficult is that Mr. Tyler wanted to use the coercive powers of the state to gather an unwilling audience for his message.

If I don't like a public speaker's message I can walk out. But in class a student can't just walk out. It's illegal. Blacks don't have to attend a lecture by the Klan. But gay students, or those just offended by hatred, at Tyler's school could not avoid his message since they are prevented from doing so by law. A private school could set its own rules legitimately for the reason that I can decide what messages people can present in my living room. But no one is compelled to attend a private school either. Not so for public schools which have the power of the state behind them.

The obvious answer is the end of compulsory government schools but the question the court faced was what to do under the current situation not under some future ideal. I would love to see more private schools and I would prefer that they be secular in orientation and not catering to fundamentalist prejudices and ignorance.

Certainly if I ran a school privately I would make it clear that certain kinds of prejudicial remarks are not acceptable. I think a good school ought to teach those kind of moral values about respecting the rights of others. Now whether government can do that is another issue especially since government in the US is not particularly respectful of the rights of gay men and women itself.

When we go to the context we usually find some answers. In private context the property owner has the right to set whatever rules he wants regarding the content of speech. In the public context that is more difficult. But I generally support total freedom there because all are required to support the public property then all should be able to express their views. A klan rally in a public park is allowable since no one is compelled to sit there and listen to the bigots. And most people normally see government schools as they would government parks. But there is that one nagging difference: students are compelled by law to go to school but no one is compelled to go to the park. Obviously the best answer is the removal of compulsion. The court had to decide in actual context not an ideal one.

I tend to think they decided correctly but only because of the involuntary audience that Mr. Tyler was taking advantage of. But while I think the court may have gotten it right I don't think they did so for the right reasons. As long as students are foced to attend government centres of any kind they should not be subjected to involuntary assaults on their character. By the way I would say the same is true in regards to anti-Christian messages one may wish to publicise in class.

Now does this mean the Gay-Straight Alliance should be banned from campus? No. No student is compelled to attend those meetings. It is a voluntary student activity not a mandatory school activity. Attending class is not voluntary. I would also allow Mr. Tyler to form an anti-gay alliance if he wanted because again no one is compelled to attend his meetings. But his fellow students had no choice as to whether they wanted to endure his bigoted messages being publicised across his t-shirt while in class.

I accept others may disagree and I'm open to persuasion as I'm not entirely confident about my own position here. Either way the element of having a forced audience clearly complicates the matter.

PS: I have confirmed that Harper's (pictured above) lawsuit was funded by a group from the Religious Right.

Power Surge: The madness of King George

I recommend the sober reading of Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush by Gene Healy and Timothy Lynch. Published by the Cato Institute this report debunks the insane notion that George Bush is an advocate of limited government. It is almost funny that some "libertarians" can actually attempt to defend this man -- though none do so convincingly. Bush is the most anti-libertarian president in years.

This report notes: "From free speech and unreasonable searches to war powers, habeas corpus, and federalism we will examine the president's words and actions in light of the constitutional duties imposed by the oath of office. The pattern that emerges is one of a ceaseless push for power, unchecked by either the courts or Congress, one, in short of disdain for constitutional limits."

They conclude: "On the campaign trail in 2000 then-governor Bush typically ended his stump speech with a dramatic flourish: he pantomimed the oath of office. But the oath is more than a political gimmick; for he founding generation it was a solemn pledge, designed to bind the officeholder to the country and the Constitution he serves. Throughout his tenure, President Bush has repeatedly dishonored that pledge. And because of that, he was weakened he constitutional order on which the American way of life depends."

Conservatives in the US tried to impeach Bill Clinton for far less. What has happened to their purported support for the Constitution? Why aren't conservatives leading the campaign to have Bush impeached. Clinton, may or may not have deserved impeachment for what he did. But Bush has engaged in active treason against the Constitution and the so-called small government conservative movement is almost silent. One can only conclude that they never actually believed in either the Constitution or small government.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Actress who played Rand dies in Rome.

In 1942 Italian actress Alida Valli played Kira in the film version of Ayn Rand's We the Living. The original Italian version was four hours and broken into to two separate films, Addio Kira and Noi Vivi but when originals of the film were rediscovered and brought to the United States it was edited into one three hour presentation with the direct involvment of Rand herself. In reality the Kira character was based on Rand herself.

Valli, a famed beauty and prolific actress, was born Alida Maria Laura von Altenburger, baroness of Marckenstein and Freuenberg. She appeared in over 100 films and died April 22 in Rome.

Thanks Jane

Jane Jacobs is dead and the world is a little poorer today because of it. Jacobs died at the age of 89 in Toronto.

Jacobs is the author of the justifiably famous book Death and Life of Great American Cities. Her book was a frontal attack on the absurdity of urban planning. Jacobs showed that people are the dynamic on which cities are built and that planners, by interfering with the plans of people, make life worse for everyone. Jacobs once said: "I hate the government for making my life absurd." In 1968 she left her beloved New York City to move to Canada in protest to US intervention in Vietnam and to shield her sons from the viciousness of military conscription.

Scapegoating big oil is not a solution

Oil prices continue to rise. Why would anyone expect otherwise given current circumstances? Let us start with the issue of destabilising the production of oil. The invasion of Iraq harmed oil production and everyone knows it. Military invasions are not good for production under most circumstances. Then we have Bush sabre rattling with Iran pushing prices up even more. We can't factor out the fact that a large amount of oil, in Venezuela, is under the control of a lunatic either. The supply of oil is very tenuous at best. Between the bad policies of George Bush and those of Hugo Chavez the world's oil supply is in trouble.

It isn't about "peak oil production" either. It's the political disruption of production that is the main factor in pushing up costs. Government is the problem not the solution. Of course those who disrupt the supply demand scapegoats lest people realise their complicity. So now Bush, the most anti-market president in the White House in a long time, is calling for an investigation into the victims of his policies: the oil companies.

Bush is doing this for several reasons. First, the American people have figured out that he is utterly incompetent. It's not just a matter of being incompetent either. Bush sets out to impose bad policies. Bush has single handedly destroyed what little value the Republican Party had. And his approval rating is now around 32% meaning two-thirds of the voters are sick unto death of this boob. About the only people standing firm with Bush are the intellectual challenged within the fundamentalist religious camp. These fanatics don't particularly care about wars, the economy or anything else. They are moral fanatics who want to impose their religious beliefs on the nation no matter the consequences -- much like the Taliban -- so morality is the only issue they care about. Since Bush is one of them they will stay loyal under most circumstances. If these people end their support of Bush he will have no support left.

But we shouldn't forget that the price of oil is not just the supply and demand of oil. When we read that oil is $75 per barrel we are already talking about two factors. One is the supply and demand of oil and the other is the supply and demand for US dollars.

Oil is denominated in US dollars thus oil prices are a relationship between dollars and oil. Rising prices could mean three things. One is that the value of oil is increasing while the dollar remains steady. Another is that the value of the dollar is falling requiring more dollars to buy the same amount of oil. And the third is that the value of dollars are falling AND the value of oil is increasing.

Oil is not the only factor in the price of oil. The value of dollars is a major component as well. And the US dollar is under siege due to incompetent policy decisions from the White House in particular. That the dollar is in trouble is apparent. On April 24th the central bank of Qatar said they were building up their holding in euros and cutting back their holding in dollars. Only a few days before the Swedish central bank said they were increasing they holding in euros from 37 percent to 50 percent and cutting their holdings in dollars from 37 percent to 20 percent. Central banks around the world have been dumping dollars, pushing down its value, ever since Bush got into the White House.

The dollar is now trading at an all time low relative to euros. Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin has questioned whether the US dollar can remain a reserve currency for the world considering the massive deficits which the Republican government has racked up.

Evidence that a significant amount of rising oil prices is due to the falling dollar are all around us but most Americans don’t bother to look. The yen has been going up in relationship to the falling dollar. And gold prices are increasing as well. Copper only broke the $5,000 per tonne level on March 17th. Yet less than a month later it had surged past the $6,000 per tonne level as well. Gold is now trading at it highest level in almost a quarter of a century and silver is trading at its highest point in 23 years.

Again all these are items that see their price increase because the value of the dollar is falling.

The blame for all this rests totally and completely with the spendthrifts in the Republican Party. Republicans control the Senate, the House and the White House. They write the spending bills, they pass the spending bills and they alone rack up the deficits. This is not to say Democrats are better but the Republicans have given the Democrats a free pass on this issue since the Democrats don’t control any branch of government.

In March alone the Republican big spenders took federal spending to $250 billion which is an increase in spending of almost 14% from just one year ago. The federal deficit shot up by $85.5 billion in just that one month period. Prior to March the record for federal spending was set in February when the government wasted $232 billion. March deficit was not an all time record because only one month earlier the deficit increased by $119.2 billion. In just the first six months of the current budget year the deficit has totalled $303 billion. The old record deficit for a full year was $413 billion, also established by George Bush. The White House projects at total yearly deficit of $423 billion but since they have accomplished almost 75% of that in just half a year there is a good chance the deficit will surpass the record the White House projects.

Everything is pointing to a meltdown for the US dollar and George Bush and his party deserve the credit. So there is no wonder when Bush joins the chorus of Leftists wanting to lay the blame on big oil.

Bush announced several measures to combat rising oil prices but none of them are significant or meaningful. He is mostly tinkering with inconsequentials. He continues his bellicose, almost invasion-mad policies, that destabilise oil markets thus pushing up costs. And his spending policies mean the dollar is haemorrhaging value at ever increasing rates.

Instead of accepting responsibility for his actions Bush proposes subsidies for a small number of hybrid cars, wants to investigate the oil companies and impose other short-term, inconsequential changes. But on the major issues he turns a blind eye. He has to do so since the major issues are the core policies he follows: world wide policing by the US government and massive spending at the federal level. Those two interventionists measures are the core of the Bush agenda and he is too stupid to admit his own role in the current crisis.

Liberal MP joins army

Heather Roy is not someone easily known outside New Zealand circles. She is a member of parliament for the ACT Party, which is a classical liberal party there. Party leader is Rodney Hide, another staunch liberal. Heather acts as the spokesman on national security for the party. And she decided she needed some more first hand information. So she signed up for the army. She has started her six weeks of basic training.

To get in Ms. Roy had to pass a physical. She was required to do 24 push ups but the trainers stopped her after she had reached 130 figuring she had proven her point. Roy has permission to take a few weeks off from parliament for this venture and has also decided to donate the salary she will receive to charity. Roy, 42, is the mother of five and one of the better members of parliament.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Buy a dildo go to jail

The Religious Right in the United States means business and business for them means the minute regulation of the private lives of everyone. Their stronghold is the American South. These Bible-belt states form the backbone of the American fundamentalism, the Religious Right and now the Republican Party --- formerly known as a party that advocated "limited" government but now thoroughly advocating state interventionism across the board.

According to Associated Press a bill is being introduced in the South Carolina state legislature by Republican Ralph Davenport to make it a felony to sell any device that is used mainly for sexual stimulation. A dildo would be classified as "obscene" and anyone selling this piece of plastic could spend up to five years in jail and pay a $10,000 fine.

Other Republican states have already passed similar laws including Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas. Apparently the only kind of dildos that will be legal in the South are those that routinely get elected.

The EU bureaucrats are a meddlesome bunch and one of the meddlesome things they do is produce a dictionary. You wouldn't think it necessary to have them issue politically motivated defintions for words. But they do. It's one reason that Europe has the problems it does. The EU central planners have their fingers in every pie and now they want to regulate the words that people use.

They want the worlds "Islamic" and "terrorism" to not be used together. Why? Is it because they have discovered there is no such thing? Not at all. The terror networks that continually attack, or attempt to attack, the West are still virtually all Islamic in nature. All the 9/11 killers were Muslims, all the men responsible for the attacks in Spain were Muslims and all the men who murdered commuters in London were Muslim. While here and there other groups, motivated by other purposes, do exist the fact remains that the main attacks, consistently aimed at the West, have come from terrorists who claim they do so in the name of Islam. And the fact remains that all polls show varying degrees, but significant, support for these terrorist attacks but only from their fellow Muslims.

According to this report the EU "is trying to develop new concepts that will not cause offense to Muslims."

Now here is what I don't understand. If there is a large band of Muslims killing and terrorising in the name of Islam, and there is; and if there is very large support for such terror expressed by other Muslims, and there is; and if there is almost no support from any other group then exactly why isn't this Islamic terrorism? How does calling it something else prevent it from happening?

The EU says rewriting language will accomplish several things. First they say this will eradicate "sources of the radicalism producing terror." Excuse me? This assumes that the cause of Islamic terrorism is not a view of Islam from fundamentalists within the religion but was caused by the West. Blame the victims!

Second, they want to use terms that don't offend Muslim or which can't be abused by "the extreme right". Why are they worried more about offending people steeped in a violent mythology than they are about the victims that mythology creates? And don't assume that the majority of victims of Islamic fundamentalism are Westerners. They are not. The main victims are people born into Islamic homes. The hundreds of women cruelly murdered every year in the name "of honor" under an Islamic code of justice are its victims. The gay men and women born in Islamic countries who are being killed every year are its victims The spectacular incidents of violence are horrible and offensive to all civilized people. But such incidents are only a small portion of the suffering inflicted on the world. It is the daily pain and misery that Islamic fundamentalism imposes on millions of victims that is the bulk of the violence that is committed by religious fanatics.

Changing words won't stop such systemic violence from being engaged in by fanatics. Sticking their heads into the sand and pretending reality is something other than what is is won't make it go away. Instead of spending hours trying to pretend reality doesn't exist the EU would better serve Europe by considering what to do about the viper it has clutched to its own breast.

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Police arrest three gollywogs.

Donald Reynolds own a small shop in the United Kingdom. Recently he received an urgent phone call from the police. Now such things are never good news. Either the police are about to inform you of bad news or the police are the bad news.

Reynolds was told to come to his shop immediately. He, of course, rushed to the scene. When he arrived everything appeared fine but a couple of irrate Bromyard police officers were standing outside insisting that he unlock his closed business immediately. They were there to "arrest" three toy gollywogs that were on display in Reynolds' shop window.

According to the police a complaint was filed that the gollies are racist and offensive. Reynolds spent some weeks worried that he might be prosecuted for selling these toys. As he said: "This is political correctness gone mad." Reynolds said he recently started selling the dolls but the dolls themselves have been around for over a century. The police started to realise that they had starting looking like fools for the raid and finally decided not to press charges.

But they were not willing to let it drop. They didn't want to appear totally wrong so they warned Reynolds about the toys. As the police announced: "Suitable advice about the sensitivities of placing such items on display is being provided to the store owner." But they admit that "no offences have been identified". Now if there is no offence here then exactly who are the police to offer "suitable advice" on how to conduct a business.

Friday, April 14, 2006

US Marine stopped from flying by airport brownshirts.

A Marine reservist had been sent to Iraq by President Bush. Daniel Brown was there for eight months and was coming home. He was with two other Marines returning home and they were in uniform. When he landed in Los Angeles all he wanted to do was fly to Minneapolis. But he couldn't. He was stopped by the brownshirts who work for the Federal government harassing passangers who make the mistake of flying through the US. It appears that the rather common name, Daniel Brown, is another one of thousands of names on the "Watch List" that the bureaucrats turned out. This means that every human being in the US who is named Daniel Brown is listed as a potential terrorist.

Whenever possible I recommend people avoid flying within US borders. It's not worth the constant hassle. I have myself witnessed uniformed thugs mistreating people, screaming at the public, barking orders like some gestapo agent, and in general just pushing people around. Aren't you glad they treat people like serfs in order "to protect freedom". Of course the US now has the equivalent of an internal passport --- just like the old Soviet Union. Without your "papers" you can't travel anywhere. You certainly can't drive. But now you can't get on airplanes and even buses without being stopped by federal agents who demand that everyone produce their "papers" to satisfy the petty dictators. Even if you are walking somewhere a police officer can stop you and demand your ID. If you don't have it or decline to show it, even if you have done nothing wrong, you can be arrested. Freedom to travel without government papers has all but been abolished in George Bush's America. Of course it took "small government" Republicans to accomplish that.

Brown was a bit dismayed by his treatment. "A guy goes over and serves his country fighting for eight or nine months, and then we come home and put up with this?"

I belong in Paris.

I tried this little "test" to see which European city I allegedly belong in. And they said Paris. Considering my criticism of France this might surprise people. But the reality is, that despite the stupidity of French politicians I happen to love Paris. I would say it is my favourite city to just wander around. So maybe this test gets it right or maybe they just got lucky. What is your experience?

You Belong in Paris

You enjoy all that life has to offer, and you can appreciate the fine tastes and sites of Paris.You're the perfect person to wander the streets of Paris aimlessly, enjoying architecture and a crepe.

Was that two faces or two terms?

You probably won't recognize the following names. All seven are Republican members of the US House of Representatives. All seven ran campaigns where they endorsed the idea of term limits on politicians. Each one of them pledged publicly to serve only two terms in Congress. Each one of them has served there two terms. Each one of them is breaking their pledge because they decided they like it in Washington.

Barbara Cubin of Wyoming.Jeff Flake of ArizonaGil Gutknecht of MinnesotaTimothy Johnson of IllinoisFrank LoBiondo of New JerseyMark Souder of IndianaZach Wamp of Tennessee

Malaysian Chinese protest Islamization

A Chinese couple were arrested in Malaysia and face a potential one year jail sentence for kissing each other. Ooi Kean Thong and Siow Ai Wei were arrested on indency charges for kissing one another and hugging each other --- that's it.

Chong Chieng Jen, of the youth wing of the Democratic Action Party, said: "We want to send a message that it is inappropriate for local government to be the moral police." He also noted: "If we don't check the trend now we are heading towards a real Islamic state, or going backwards to the medieval time." A Malaysian court ruled the prosecuting the couple for kissing is acceptable because kissing is deemed indecent by Islamic and Asian cultures and only acceptable by Western standards.

Alas fundamentalism is fundamentalism. And the comparison between Islamic radicals and Christians fundamentalists is an easy one to make. Take this article, concerning the fundamentalist Bob Jones University. It notes that "displays of affection such as kissing and hand-holding are banned" for the students. They are banned also from going to movies, owning TVs or DVD players or listening to music that is considered rock, country, jazz or contemporary Christian. It is hard to tell which version of the Taliban one is dealing with without a score card.

Of course the university is allowed to set any kind of rules they wish. But the similarities in values is something to note. And the real question is whether such people are inclined to impose those values on others when they have political power. And the consensus from the Religious Right is that will impose such values the moment they can. Take this quote that was brought to my attention today. It comes from Michael Marcavage of the fundamentalist group Repent America: "According to the scriptures, it's the government's job to enforce God's law." Now Marcavage went on and seemed to suggest that gay people be put to death. He later said that the remarks were off the record and that his entire comment was not printed.

But David Chilton, another Christianists author, reveals that just because some of his kind pretend to endorse free markets does not necessarily mean they advocate freedom. Chilton said: "The government must enforce God's law." And he says "The free market is only free with respect to state intervention. It is never free from the providence of God." As for laissez farie, well that means "the state enforces God's law, and leaves men free to make choices." Free to make choices only if they don't violate what Christianists say is "God's law" then no such freedom would exist.

Who will pay Bush's debt?

Throw the drowning man a brick.

I am in perpetual amazement at how France manages to consistently do the wrong thing. This is a nation where they would throw bricks to downing men and fight fires with gasoline.

After the French government gave in to violent threats --- the French are not exactly the most stout-hearted of people --- over the deregulation of labour laws that have made France an economic disaster, the National Assembly has passed a new law to replace the old law.

The old law was a very timid step in the right direction. The new law is just more of the same old policies that created the employment disaster in France. The government has already told every greedy special interest group that the way to get what they want is through violence. It's like the millionaire who unhesitatingly pays a ransom the moment someone threatens to kidnap his kids and then can't figure out where all his money went. No doubt he assures himself the plan worked since no one is now threatening to kidnap his kids but then why would they since has no wealth left to pay?

In France the law punishes people for hiring employees. If you hire someone who is lazy, uncooperative, destructive, bad at his job, etc., you are pretty much stuck with him. In France a job is not a co-operative agreement between two parties both of whom are free to enter it or leave it as they wish. It is a one sided agreement. The employee can bugger off when he pleases but the employer is stuck with the individual for eternity. Of course that means employees know that their keeping a job is not based on productivity, reliability, etc. So they have zero incentive to do their job well. And employers have every incentive to avoid hiring workers when ever possible.

And if he does hire he will be extremely careful in regards to whom he offers employment. So workers that are high risk get ignored. Who is considered high risk? Well, young, untried, inexperienced workers for one. All things equal it is better to hire a worker with a proven track record then one of the spoiled brats that the French universities turn out. So youth unemployment is high. And if the youth have no higher education that makes them even less valuable. So the system not only punishes the young but young people with no education. Hence the third world employment rates for immigrants in France.

The French politicians believe they are the deity with the omniscience necessary to centrally plan all aspects of the private sector --- a sector that many of them have studiously avoided themselves. They can not escape the fact that their tampering with the machinery of the economy caused problems. In fact they created massive problems. And like any good bumbler they decide that the way to solve the problem is not to undo the tinkering they did on one part of the machine at all. Instead they tinker with the workings someplace else in the vain hope that two wrongs will make a right.

In this case they decide to throw money at the problem. As if they haven't tried that solution before. French employers will receive subsidies if they hire "youngsters aged between 16 and 26 experiencing the greatest difficulties in gaining access to the labour market." Not a single word about how they, the National Assembly, built all the roadblocks preventing these youths "experiencing difficulties" from finding employment. Jean-Louis Borloo (emphasis on the "loo" I think) is the Employment (sic) Minister. He says that the new law "establishes the principle of state aid to employers taking on young people in difficulties..." Establishes the principle? The French are notorious for subsidising that which doesn't work and punishing that which does.

The term "laissez-faire" for markets did not come into existence hundreds of years ago because the French practised economic freedom. It was coined in France because they did not!

If the French today do read Bastiat it is so that they can learn how to do the completely wrong thing. Bastiat would note that the 300 million euros thrown at this program will no doubt appear to create some jobs for these youths. The politicians will crow at the tiny number of jobs so created and suggest the program be expanded. No one will bother to ask about the jobs the program will destroy. How? The 300 million euros have to come from somewhere.

So the government will confiscate 300 million euros from the productive sector of the economy. It has no other choice you can't confiscate the money from the sector of the economy that produces no wealth. Somewhere 300 million euros worth of jobs will have to be destroyed. Of course the cost of destroying the one set of jobs, which is that which is not seen, doesn't come free either. To distribute 300 million euros to that which is seen the government will accrue costs as well. So perhaps the 300 million euro distribution process will cost 400 million in all, maybe less, maybe more. But when politicians hand out 300 million euros it there are additional costs as well. Even if we assume that the 300 million creates 300 million worth of jobs we know that elsewhere it destroyed the same value in jobs plus the additional jobs that were destroyed in order to pay for the transfer process itself.

Now here is what is also forgotten. The jobs created are not worth the money that the employees are being paid. How do we know that? Simple. If it was worth hiring these employees at these wages it would have been done already. So what will be created, if created at all, will be jobs that do not produce enough to justify their costs. If they justified their costs no subsidies would be needed.

And that which is not seen --- those jobs which are destroyed by the confiscation of 300 million euros of productive capital --- well, we know those jobs are productive. If they did not generate 300 million euros, or more, worth of productivity they would not exist. So by the time the keepers of the asylum finish their meddling they will have destroyed productivity, increased unemployment, and made their entire mess even messier. But they will congratulate themselves profusely for having averted a disaster and for finding a "solution" to the crisis that they created. Meanwhile the problem will not be solved and, if anything, will grow worse. And if past history is any indication they will lament the new problems, blame the markets for failing, and demand new interventions guaranteed to make it worse yet again.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

France: home of cowards, fools and thugs

One must wonder seriously why France is such a pathetic nation. I happen to love France. Paris is one my favorite spots in the whole world. And each I went I spent more and more time there. But there is no denying that something rather sad is happening to France. Whatever virtues the nation has, what ever past it experienced, there is no denying that is a nation populated by cowards, foods and thugs. And perhaps the apathetic.

France has one of the sickest economies in Europe. And there is no indication it will ever improve. The nation suffers from high unemployment due to stupid rules that destroy jobs. The French don't care. If they are unemployed they live off the state. But the state to pay the unemployed has to destroy further jobs via taxation make the situation worse and worse.

The government tried one major reform. Stupid youths, totally devoid of any economic understanding, took the to streets and acted like spoiled brats. But that is not a trait of just the young. It is the French. The nation is populated by spoiled brats. Spoiled brats in bureaucracy, spoiled brats in agricuture, spoiled brats in the trade unions. And when spoiled children don't get their way they thrown a temper tantrum. The stupid mothers among us cave in to the screaming and crying and promise the vile child that they will buy her treats and candy or toys. In essence they reward the spoiled one for their tantrum by caving in to their demands.

It is clear that such behavior only makes the child worse. Well, the French governtment has capitulated to the violence inflicted by young fools in the universities and older fools in the trade unions. France is economically doomed for the foreseeable future. The politicians are cowards and caved in. The students and unionists who inflicted violence on that nation are fools and thugs. Mohammed Galadari, of the Khaleej Times from the United Arab Emirates hit the nail on the head: "In France, people do not want to work, because of the social welfare system, under which those without work get an unemployment dole of 1000 euros a month. This is as much as what one gets from a normal work. 'So, why should we go for work', is what people ask. I have heard such questions myself.

Sunday, April 09, 2006

New Goldwater Documentary

The year was 1964 and the media used all its might to rip apart Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was an icon to the conservative movement as it then existed. This was a man who talked about limited government and meant it. Goldwater was decimated in the polls. Little wonder as he was portrayed as a man itching to use atomic bombs. Goldwater represented the heart and soul of the Repubican Party.

A new documentary on Goldwater has recently premiered: Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater. The film was produced by Goldwater's granddaughter, C.C. Goldwater. She says the film will surprise a lot of people. "I think people will look at him and say, 'Wow, he was a lot more liberal than we thought he was.'"

Of course that is not precises. What does she mean saying he was liberal? Goldwater was liberal in the original sense of the word not in the warped American sense of the word. He supported the right to abortion for instance. He and his wife were close supporters of Planned Parenthood. He also supported removing the ban on gays serving in the military. In one segment of the documentary Goldwater makes clear: "The religious right scares the hell out of me. They have no place in politics."

And the Religious Right a few years back, when the interview was done, was no where as near as authoritarian and theocratic as it is today. If they scared Goldwater back then today he'd be packing for Canada.

Nixon aid John Dean is interviewed about his testimony regarding Watergate. He had revealed that Nixon knew about the break-in and says that before he testified Goldwater approached him and said, regarding Nixon, "That S.O.B. was always a liar, so go nail him." Nixon represented the battle for Republicanism at the time. He was an advocate of Big Government or what is called "compassionate conservatism".

This brings up an interesting thought. Goldwater disliked the Nixonian wing of his party. He thought the Religious Right was dangerous. One could only guess what he would say about the current Republican in the White House. George Bush is Nixon writ large when it comes to his support for massive government intervention. And onto that statist foundation he has grafted theocratic sentiments from a far more extreme Religious Right than existed when Goldwater said these people scared him. I suspect Goldwater would not be pleased.

A couple of years ago I flew out of Barry Goldwater International Airport and remember the security thugs harassing flyers in the name of security. At the time I thought Goldwater would be spinning in his grave. Of course if a Republican today expressed took positions like Goldwater did he would be called a RINO by the neo-cons that control the party. But he would not be a Republican In Name Only. He would be representing the old heart of the party. The RINO's today are not small government, libertarian-leaning fans of Goldwater. The RINO's are in the White House.

Christianists in the US are pushing for a government ban on all abortions. It is widely accepted that George Bush has put men on the Supreme Court who will take away a woman's right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not. Already one US state has passed a new total ban on abortion and others are moving in that direction --- especially Republican controlled states.

El Salvador is one nation where such a merger of theology and law is already in place. A woman in El Salvador who has an abortion can go to prison for up to 50 years. There are special police agencies that specifically investigate women and they even have forensic vagina inspectors. Rich women fly to Miami while poor women seek out the back-alley abortionist which often leads to complications. But if she goes to hospital due to those complications she can be arrested and end up handcuffed to the bed with a police guard until she can be imprisoned. Hospitals and physicians are forced to act as agents of the state and report any woman suspected of having an abortion.

The law says that every foetus is a human being from conception. So what does this mean? Consider women who have an ectopic pregnancy. The egg is fertised but is growing in the wrong spot. It will continue to grow until it causes damage to the mother. Before this happens the foetus needs to be removed. In El Salvador it can't be removed. They must wait until the foetus dies or until the fallopian tube is ruptured by it. It's easy to remove the foetus but to remove it is to risk the law. So they risk the woman's life by waiting.

The New York Times has an excellent article on the situation in El Salvador. It tells the story of one woman who had three children and was the only employed member of her family. When she got pregnant she had an abotion. The state took her away from her children and imprisoned her for 30 years. True this is a third world country. But American's should learn about what is happening there. If the Christianists in America get their way the situation in El Salvador will be America's future.

The photo above is of the minister Paul Hill, a "pro-life" advocate who received the death penalty for killing an abortion doctor, his body guard, and for attempting to kill the doctor's wife.

About those lazy immigrants!

The xenophobes and racists pretend that the real reason they are against immigrants is because immigrants are lazy and only want welfare. Some so-called libertarians say they support immigration but ONLY after welfare is abolished. That's really a variation of the statment from the racists and xenophobes. It implies that people immigrate for welfare. Of course some of these "libertarians" spend a lot of time hanging out with the racists and xenophobes them selves so it's no wonder they pick up this rhetoric and logic.

So what would they make of the report that shows that immigrants to the US are more likely to have a job than the lazy native-born? The Washington Post reports that in 2005 the umeployment rate for the native born was 5.2 percent. For immigrants it was 4.6 percent. The numbers come from the Department of Labour and include immigrants whether they are in the US legally or illegally.

Even if you compare within the same racial group you find that immigrants have higher employment rates. American born Hispanics had an unemployment rate of 7.2 percent. Legal Hispanic immigrants had an unemployment rate of just 3.6 percent. Illegal Hispanic immigrants had an unemployment rate of 5.5 percent. Now it is be expected that illegal immigrants would have a higher unemployment rate since the US government goes out of its way to make it difficult for them to find employment. It is against the law to hire them. Federal agents spend a lot of time trying to unemploy them.

One thing to remember is that immigrants are a self-selected group. To be an immigrant implies a willingness to make an effort that "native born" simply don't make. A native born worker need only sit right where he is. The immigrant, to be an immigrant, has to be willing to make an effort. And that is exactly one of the traits that employers need from employees --- a willingess to make an effort.

What redistribution has wrought.

The Marxist dictator, Robert Mugabe, must be proud of himself. His plans for redistributing assets have resulted in the economy contracting by 40 percent. That is taking a toll on the people who live in that sad nation. According to the UN Zimbabwe now has the lowest life expectancy in the world. The average life expectancy for women is 34 years of age. For men it is hardly much better, 37 years of age. In just the last year the life expectancy of women has dropped by two years. For many years Mugabe managed to stay in power partially through the foreign aid that was showered on him by the West. Throughout the world there are dictators who survive because "caring" people lobby to throw cash at them in the name of the "helping" the poor. In Zimbabwe all they managed to do was help the poor into an early grave.

Julian is still right....

Aruni Mukherjee, of the University of Warwick, has an interesting article in The Asia Times. He recounts the famous---infamous in Green circles---between Julian Simon, an economist and Paul Ehrlich, one of the most famous doomsday prophets of the Green religion.

Simon argued that the price of resources were on a long term downward trend. I think he is absolutely right. Ehrlich argued that we are running out of everything. Now basic economics, on which no sane economist disagrees, tells you that if a resource is becoming scarce relative to demand that the price will go up. And if the supply is becoming more plentiful, in economic terms, the price will drop.

Ehrlich's predictions regarding, well actually regarding almost everything he ever predicted, have been spectacularly wrong. If he got anything right I'm unaware of it. He predicted massive famine in Vietnam and by the time his book had been published with this claim Vietnam was already producing food surpluses and that was some years ago. It still is producing food surpluses. Ehrlich knows nothing about economics at all and that is the core reason that he keeps making a fool out of himself. Of course the true believers in the Green religion, like fundamentalists everywhere, will never worry about such things. They just ignore the facts. When it comes to facts versus faith the religious prefer faith.

The reason I bring up Mr. Mukherjee is that his article looks at this debate once again. Now originally Simon argued that Ehrlich could pick any 10 resources and they would calculate how much of the resource one could buy for $1000 in 1980, the year of the bet. In one decade they would take the same quantity of those resources and convert it into dollars. Only as an example let us assume that for $1000 you could buy 500 pounds of copper in 1980. In 1990 they then take the 500 pounds of copper and look at the price for copper and convert this back to a dollar amount. So if 500 pounds of copper in 1990 were worth $1200 we would say that copper has become more scarce. If, instead, it were selling for $800 then copper became less scarce.

As the bet went the difference between the value in 1980 and 1990 would be paid to the winner by the loser. So in the fictional example I gave if the price went up to $1200 then Simon would pay Ehrlich $200 ($1200 less $1000). If the price dropped then Ehrlich pays the difference to Simon. Ehrlich bragged about how easy it would be for him to make a nice sum of money from such an easy bet. In his uninformed view the world could only be running out of things and prices had to go up. He saw it as a sucker bet.

It was. He, however, was the sucker. The price of every single resource that Ehrlich picked out dropped. And the drop was so dramatic that even without adjusting for inflation Simon would have won the bet. What makes Mukherjee's article of interest is that he wondered what would have happened if they had extended the bet until today. Now Simon offered to place a second bet with more resources for an even longer time period but Ehrlich, once burned, refused to consider it. He made some snide remark about the bet proving nothing and then pretty much pretended it never happened.

Now Simon never said such drops were linear. Prices go up and down. And there can well be circumstances unique to one resource which pushes it up for a period. But he argued that long-term the general trend is for prices to drop. Remember everything has to be adjusted for the fact that government keeps lowering the value of money through inflation. Simon thought it was possible to be wrong here and there which is why he picked several items and not just one. Mukherjee found that if the bet had been extended to the end of last year that Simon still would have won. All the prices were still below the 1980 value. So Ehrlich was wise to refuse to accept another bet. Unfortunately Dr. Simon did live long enough to see these results. Ehrlich still peddles the same old theories he did before. As I said faith trumps facts for the true believers.

Mukherjee also discusses a more recent bet by New York Times columnist John Tierney. Tierney is a fascinating writer and I used to read him all the time. But his paper has now made his column a "premium service" so I don't read him any longer. And I rarely mention columns that appear in the NY Times. The paper made the choice to remove themselves from on-line debate by hiding behind a wall of premium charges. Tierney argued that oil would drop in price long term as well. And he now has a bet with "peak oil" believer Matthew Simmons. Each is putting up $5000 in oil. Tierney argues oil prices will drop long-term and Simmons says it will rise to over $200 per barrel in 2005 dollars.

So far, after adjusting for inflation, Tierney is winning in spite of what are seen as high oil prices. Oil has in fact dropped 3.5% since the bet was made. Now everyone knows that oil is expensive right now due mainly to political factors not to supply factors. But Mukherjee notes that if one adjusts the old prices of oil so that we are using dollars of the same value that oil has dropped in price since the Simon bet. A barrel of oil in 1980 would have fetched $85.61 in 2005 dollars. In 2005 it was going for around $55 which is a drop in price of about 3.5%. And if you go back to 1970 the price drop has been even more dramatic.

Tierney has taken a bigger risk. He is not betting on a basket of resources but on just one resource and one that is particularly susceptible to political manipulation. One stupid invasion in some Middle Eastern nation could send oil prices back through the roof. A series of terrorist attacks on oil fields could do the same thing. One of the richest oil fields in the world, in Venezuela, is under the control of a Marxist nutcase. Presumably Tierney feels that by holding the bet long enough that the time factor will smooth out the rough bumps that politics can create. Tierney could be very right in the long-term (and I think he is) and still lose the bet in the short-term. But a pure Simonian perspective wouldn't have this problem as a basket of resources would be chosen and not just one.

So even if Tierney loses the bet the theory remains unchallenged only because it was a bet in conflict with the basic tenet of the theory. Yes, long term the costs of resources, in stable dollars, will probably decline. But each resource has separate supply and demand factors. But long-term, on average, prices will decline for virtually any basket of resources one picks. If Tierney loses the Greens will ignore the fundamentals of the theory and crow that this proves they were right all along. And that is the one reason I am not totally happy with Tierney's bet.

I do think he has a very good chance of winning it. But he put all his eggs into one resource basket so to speak. And with just one resource chosen he has a greater chance of being wrong on the specific date when the bet ends. Over time he will probably be proven right but he could well be wrong on that specific day. In fact I would argue that within the life time of people now alive that the price of a barrel of oil, in steady dollars, may well reach a level that is the equivalent of $5 per barrel. Why? Because I think that the day is not far off when most the world will have found other cheaper alternatives for producing energy and the demand for oil will drop to a fraction of what it is today. Much the same way that whale oil dropped in value when people figured out how to use petroleum.

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Forget bin Laden, ban french fries

Lisa Murkowski is the Republican Nanny from the state of Alaska. Sorry, I meant to say Republican Senator. As such she is one of the top leaders in her party, which still, on rare occassions pretends to support limited government.

Nanny Murkowski is part of a crowd of nanny state advocates in the Senate that, according to the New York Times, "plans to introduce legislation... that would prohibit the sale in school not only of French Fries but also of other fatty or sugary foods, including soft drinks."

Now the US is supposed to be a nation where government powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Here is a question for you. Which clause grants the federal government the power to regulate school lunches? In fact where is the federal government granted any powers having to do with education at all? You won't find it. It's not there but then the Constitution has been out of fashion in Washington for a long time.

What is particularly strange is that they are so worried about what people eat in the school cafeteria and not very concerned about the rot they are fed in the classroom.

Friday, April 07, 2006

New York race for governor of interest.

New York State has always had a slightly more interesting ballot than other states each election. One reason is that candidates routinely run for office with several ballot lines. A Democrat, for instance, might also be the candidate of the Liberal Party (and here we mean "liberal" in the US sense of the word not the actual sense of the word). Republicans there routinely seek a second line as a candidate for the Conservative Party.

Now conservaties are not classical liberals. They have as much in common with classical liberalism as do their counterparts on the left: the socialists. That Republicans routinely seek ballot as "Conservatives" in New York as well is an indication that they do NOT support social freedom. Of course these days they have pretty much abandoned economic freedom as well. They are too keen dancing to the Bush March.

One exception to that rule is Bill Weld. Weld was the governor of Massachusettes for a few years and elected as a Republican. He was one of those Republicans who had more in common with the old Right like Goldwater and Reagan than with the new big government Right of George Bush. Weld has made it clear that he wants government out the bedroom as much as out of the boardroom. His GOP compatriots are rabid socialists of the soul. They think government ought to use all its power to push the Religious-Right moral agenda. And there is nothing liberal about that. It is not modern liberalism and it is not classical liberalism. It is statism.

Weld is now living in New York state and he is running for governor there. He is seeking the nomination of the state Libertarian Party as well. Weld is wanting to roll back the income tax for the state exempting the first $75,000 in income. Weld is not entirely consistent but then that is to be expected for a major party candidate. But he is light years ahead of his competition, John Faso. Faso is a right-wing statists. Faso is calling for the death penalty.

Now I get baffled by conservative statists like Faso. They don't trust government to get it right when it comes to delivering a letter but they think government can be trusted with the power to kill people. Faso also wants the state to kill repeat "sexual offenders". So he is also expanding the traditional Right version of state killing to include crimes other than those which result in death. That is a very bad sign.

I'm of two minds. I would much rather see Bill Weld as governor. On the other hand when flagrant statists like Faso win the nomination it makes it very clear to the American people exactly how extreme the Republican Party has become. These days I happen to think Republicans are worse enemies of freedom than Democrats. So a weaker GOP is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't think "Killer Faso" can win the main election very easily. Weld would certainly be more likely to win in November. Havng Faso as the candidate would only speed up the decay of the Republican Party. So in some ways it's a toss up as to which I prefer. But on the issues Weld is clearly superior to anyone else and beats not only Faso but any Democrat.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Woody versus Jefferson

The BBC is having one of those contests where readers of their web site pick the most "moving" words in history. My first thought was that the competition could be very steep. Readers would nominate short quotes. And then the "resident expert" would pick the 10 most moving. And then readers would vote from among them.

I have to wonder about their resident expert however. Professor David Crystal is supposed to be an expert on language. Yet he seems to have no idea as to the meaning of the term "moving words". Those would be words the invoke some deep emotion. Yet many of the quotes he picked as finalists do no such thing. I happen to enjoy Woody Allen. I find his wit amusing but not moving. Yet Prof. Crystal has Woody Allen listed right up there in the top ten. Now perhaps Allen could be moving. I don't know. I've chuckled at his comments but never been moved by them. And the quote that Prof. Crystal picked is midling amusing but no where near moving: "To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition."

The quote from th Dalai Lama sounds like it came from a fortune cookie: "You can't shake hands with a clenched fist." I'm not saying there is no wisdom in this comment but it far from moving.

So far the winner is "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step." What is disappointing is that words which were proven to be moving are near the bottom. Those are the words Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence. Those were words that helped inspire a revolution and which have inspired freedom fighters for hundreds of years since. Yet they are barely ahead of Mr. Allen in the voting.

So who gets it next?

Even though I am a US citizen I know that most my fellow countrymen are totally ignorant of what is going on in the world. In fact they don't even know where the rest of the world can be found. And for most the first time they can remember hearing about a country is when the US decides to invade it. But be assured that if the nation does invade, even without any significant justification, the American people will get behind that war. I suspect many of them have yet to figure out the difference between a blow-em-up Hollywood blockbuster and reality. When they do figure it out they tend to turn against the war. Well, to prove that Americans are rather uninformed this Aussie television crew interviewed individuals on the streets of America and asked where the US should invade next.

And the TV crew showed them a world map with the nations mislabeled. To say the least the mislabeling was not noticed. So watch and enjoy the interviews for yourself. And, if you really want to worry, remember that these people elect the officials who determine US foreign policy.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Gut the Constution says Republican Senator

A few days ago I posted a comment applauding the efforts of three Republicans and saying that I thought Jon Kyl of Arizona was one of the most anti-liberty members of the US Senate. He seems to go out of his way to expand the size and scope of government. But he is one of these "New" conservatives who have fallen in love with Big Government as a hammer to beat people they don't like.

The Republicans, under the smarmy leadership from the White House, have run elections based on gay-baiting. They raise the issue every two years during elections in order to get fundamentalist moralists to turn out to vote. They assume that since the Republicans are now the most authoritarian of the two major parties that these individuals will vote for htem. And polls show they are right.

Jon Kyl has started beating the anti-gay drum in order to increase turnout. Republicans are worried as there is no longer any significant reason that those who believe in limited government, free markets, balanced budgets, etc. should vote for the GOP. The Republians have scuttled every one of those principles under the leadership of Franklin Delano Bush. Another old fashioned conservative principle was the concept of state's rights where there were issues which were reserved to the states. And marriage was one of those.

But Republicans only believe in state's rights when they are sure the states will do exactly what they want. They don't really believe in the devolution of power to the state level at all. Of course their problem is that the Constitution specifically denies certain powers to the federal government. No worry. As George Bush said, "it's just a damned piece of paper." And he has shown he really means that.

Now a Senate committe run by Kyl has come out explicitly against state's rights and devolution of power. It says:"The greatest fallacy of the same-sex marriage debate is the well-meaning but naive belief that Congress need do nothing and that the American people will sort the questions out on the state level." Read that carefully. Kyl's committee is quite clear. It is not that the issue won't be sorted out on the state level that worries Kyl and other anti-gay bigots in the Senate. What worries them is that they states will work it out in ways they don't like.

There was an old joke in Soviet Russia where an American tells a Soviet: "I am free. I can say anything I want about the American government." The Soviet responds: "I am free too. I also can say anything I want about the American government." The point was that in Russia the people were free to say anything provided the government agreed with them. In The Union of Socialist Soviet Republican States the states are free to follow any policy they wish provided they agree with the likes of Jon Kyl.

The Republicans say that allowing states to have their own policies leads to "confusion and chaos". Worse yet they admit that the Constitution no where "prohibits same-sex marraige" and therefore "applications of marriage law are typically left to the states". Republicans want to rip up the Constitution becasue they don't like the results. Is it any wonder that the majority of voters now want the Democrats to win?

They learned their lesson well.

It has been years since I’ve seen the inside of an American school. But I was invited to give a lecture on economics to a suburban high school. I didn’t know what to expect. Perhaps that was best.

The teacher had warned me that students simply never paid attention. I was a bit taken back by that. The first thing I noticed at the school was two armed security guards. Considering that I last lived in New Zealand, where not even the police are armed, this was a bit unnerving.

I went to the office and told them that I was to speak to a specific class. The individual working the main information desk said he would call the teacher. While he was doing that I used the toilet. But when I came out he had still done nothing. I stood there for a few minutes and he finally called the classroom. I was told a student would come for me.

A few minutes later a young women came to escort me to the classroom. On the way there she told me not to expect much as the students don’t care. Adding her warning to the teacher’s had me wondering how bad it could be.

As I started I could immediately see that about half the students were in a walking coma. They could walk, they could talk but they were oblivious to the classroom itself.

As I started speaking, trying to get their attention as much as possible, I was surprised to see that now and then a student would simply get up and walk out. Maybe ten minutes later they would come back. Some went out and then came back and then went out again. They didn’t have to ask permission or apparently have any real reason for leaving. They came and went as they liked.

I used my best tactics to get some attention from the students. And with a great deal of effort I finally had half of them paying attention. But it was a real chore. And here is what shocked me the most. At least five times the school interrupted the class with announcements over the loudspeaker.

If they wanted one student, from one class, to come to the office they interrupted every student in every class . None of these announcements had anything to do with a student in the class to which I was speaking The interruptions made it difficult for me to concentrate and they interrupted the students. Each time they loud speaker went off I had to get the attention of students all over again.

Toward the end of my talk I made it very clear that I would try to answer any question on any topic related to political economy. I told the students that if they only learned what I thought they should learn they would remember nothing. But if we discussed the topics that interested them they would remember. And with a little prodding the questions started coming. And some of them were good questions. One girl, pierced nose, semi-punk look, who had been drifting for the first half had finally become interested. She wanted to know what are the differences between classical liberals and modern liberals. It was a good question.

Things were finally moving along and then the damn loudspeaker went off again. I had tried to speak over it the previous times. But it still created problems each time. And I thought I would do the same thing this time. But the announcement went on and on and on.

Some man in the office was making announcements about which class won which game. And he literally meant games. He droned on about a “stick race” and dragged the announcement out. He announced which class came in fourth place. Then he would go “yaaa” and applaud over the loudspeaker. Then he went into third place, cheered again and applauded again. And then second and did it all over again. And then first and did it all over again. Now if you think it was tedious reading what he did you should have heard it live!

And he had at least four such game results to announce and each time he cheered and each time he applauded. The students did learn who came in fourth, third, second and first in the all important “nacho macho” contest but what they were not learning was anything about economics.

I was quite angry with the school. I could see in that one period that with some effort one could get through to a fair number of the students. But at least five times I was interrupted for unimportant, inconsequential announcements. All I could think was: “No wonder the kids don’t take learning seriously.” Why should they? The school itself didn’t take learning seriously.

In just that one period. the main school office sent the message to students that a “nacho macho” contest was more important than learning. They got the point across loud and clear that a “stick race” was more important than learning. Two other games, the absurdity of which I do not even remember, were both more important than learning. At least four other times the students were told that having one student come to the office was sufficient reason to stop the teaching of every single student on campus.

And that was only one period. Is it like this throughout the day? I don’t know. I hope not. But I suspect that these interruptions are common. So the students have learned what the school went out of its way to teach them: class time is not important and learning is not important. For a good number of these kids that is the one lesson they really got from the administration.

The students got the nessage

It has been years since I’ve seen the inside of an American school. But I was invited to give a lecture on economics to a suburban high school. I didn’t know what to expect. Perhaps that was best.

The teacher had warned me that students simply never paid attention. I was a bit taken back by that. The first thing I noticed at the school was two armed security guards. Considering that where I last lived not even the police are armed, this was a bit unnerving.

I went to the office and told them that I was to speak to a specific class. The individual working the main information desk said he would call the teacher. While he was doing that I used the toilet. But when I came out he had still done nothing. I stood there for a few minutes and he finally called the classroom. I was told a student would come for me.

A few minutes later a young women came to escort me to the classroom. On the way there she told me not to expect much as the students don’t care. Adding her warning to the teacher’s had me wondering how bad it could be.

As I started I could immediately see that about half the students were in a walking coma. They could walk, they could talk but they were oblivious to the classroom itself.

As I started speaking, trying to get their attention as much as possible, I was surprised to see that now and then a student would simply get up and walk out. Maybe ten minutes later they would come back. Some went out and then came back and then went out again. They didn’t have to ask permission or apparently have any real reason for leaving. They came and went as they liked.

I used my best tactics to get some attention from the students. And with a great deal of effort I finally had half of them paying attention. But it was a real chore. And here is what shocked me the most. At least five times the school interrupted the class with announcements over the loudspeaker.

If they wanted one student, from one class, to come to the office they interrupted every student in every class . None of these announcements had anything to do with a student in the class to which I was speaking. The interruptions made it difficult for me to concentrate and they interrupted the students. Each time they loud speaker went off I had to get the attention of students all over again.

Toward the end of my talk I made it very clear that I would try to answer any question on any topic related to political economy. I told the students that if they only learned what I thought they should learn they would remember nothing. But if we discussed the topics that interested them they would remember. And with a little prodding the questions started coming. And some of them were good questions. One girl, pierced nose, semi-punk look, who had been drifting for the first half had finally become interested. She wanted to know what are the differences between classical liberals and modern liberals. It was a good question.

Things were finally moving along and then the damn loudspeaker went off again. I had tried to speak over it the previous times. But it still created problems each time. And I thought I would do the same thing this time. But the announcement went on and on and on.

Some man in the office was making announcements about which class won which game. And he literally meant games. He droned on about a “stick race” and dragged the announcement out. He announced which class came in fourth place. Then he would go “yaaa” and applaud over the loudspeaker. Then he went into third place, cheered again and applauded again. And then second and did it all over again. And then first and did it all over again. Now if you think it was tedious reading what he did you should have heard it live!

And he had at least four such game results to announce and each time he cheered and each time he applauded. The students did learn who came in fourth, third, second and first in the all important “nacho macho” contest but what they were not learning was anything about economics.

I was quite angry with the school. I could see in that one period that with some effort one could get through to a fair number of the students. But at least five times I was interrupted for unimportant, inconsequential announcements. All I could think was: “No wonder the kids don’t take learning seriously.” Why should they? The school itself didn’t take learning seriously.

In just that one period. the main school office sent the message to students that a “nacho macho” contest was more important than learning. They got the point across loud and clear that a “stick race” was more important than learning. Two other games, the absurdity of which I do not even remember, were both more important than learning. At least four other times the students were told that having one student come to the office was sufficient reason to stop the teaching of every single student on campus.

And that was only one period. Is it like this throughout the day? I don’t know. I hope not. But I suspect that these interruptions are common. So the students have learned what the school went out of its way to teach them: class time is not important and learning is not important. For a good number of these kids that is the one lesson they really got from the administration.

Bush pushes abstinence overseas.

George Bush's AIDS program for other nations requires them to push abstinence and other agendas acceptable to the fundamentalist Christian Right. A General Accounting Office study looked at the results. And one thing they found was that 15 nations, in order to meet American requirements to spend more on abstinence programs, cut their spending on other programs. And where the cuts came were in programs to help prevent mother-to-child transmission of the virus. Another country cut their programs to stop the spread within couples where one partner is infected but the other is not.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Morality leader resigns under indictment

Religious right leader Congressman Tom DeLay has resigned his seat. In fact last night the announcement that he was resigning appeared on one Texas TV station but was deleted very soon after. Now it's official.

DeLay, who was the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, is under indictment. An aide to DeLay just pled guilty to partipating in the influence peddling scandal of Jack Abramoff.

DeLay, only a few days ago, appeared at a rally for religious fundamentalists claiming they are victims of campaigns by "liberals". DeLay insists he is only stepping down to prevent "liberals" from winning his district but he insists he would win the district as well. DeLay remains a darling of the "morality" Right.

Can't dance.

A judge in New York has ruled that the city has the right to ban dancing without a permit even if inside a privately owned bar or club. Such establishments must have a special "cabaret license" otherwise a dancing patron could get the club into hot water. The judge said that allowing dancing would increase traffic and noise.

In my experience dancing adds little to the noise. The noise is not from the dancing but from the music and these establishments are allowed to play music. The crime is committed if patrons move to the music.